XPO Logistics Freight, Inc. v. YRC Inc.
ORDER denying without prejudice 16 XPO's Second Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 1/20/2017. (byk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
XPO LOGISTICS FREIGHT, INC.
f/k/a CON-WAY FREIGHT INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 16-mc-220-JWL-TJJ
Relating to an action pending in
the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Case No. 5:16-cv-2247-JFL
XPO Logistics Freight, Inc. (“XPO”) has filed a second motion (ECF No. 16) to compel a
non-party YRC, Inc. employee to produce subpoenaed documents pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(d). The subpoena duces tecum was issued out of a civil case filed in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (the “Pennsylvania case”)1 and requires compliance in the state of Michigan.2
XPO, as the party serving the subpoena, may move for an order compelling production or
inspection of subpoenaed documents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(2)(B)(i),
however, the motion must be filed in the “district where compliance is required.” As the
subpoena at issue in XPO’s motion would require compliance in Michigan and not Kansas, this
Court is therefore without authority to rule on XPO’s motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that XPO’s second motion to compel (ECF No. 16) is
denied without prejudice.
XPO Logistics Freight, Inc. v. Dekker, Case No. 5:16-cv-2247-JFL (E.D. Penn.).
See Bergman Subpoena, ECF No. 16-2.
IT IS SO ORD
Dated January 20, 2017 in Kansas City, Kansas.
Teresa J. J
U. S. Mag
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?